The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. consensus, with which I agree. WP:PROF is not met. The journal is minor DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I took a look at the earliest version that pre-dates most of the spammy content in order to find central claims to notability. This subject is or has been the editor-in-chief of the Indian Journal of Clinical Biology, but I don't know if it's a major publication. This publication, which has existed since at least 1997, seems to be a well-established, non-fringe, peer-reviewed journal and may help the subject meet WP:PROFESSOR #8. This subject's social impact can be measured in the 2002 state-level Rajasthan Merit Award for creating a laboratory, a very modest but additive quality in PROFESSOR #7 (non-academic recognition). For citations, Google Scholar was particularly unhelpful because of false positives due to other similarly named researchers; I looked for key words appearing in his publications (here) and found many papers cited, though usually less than 20 times (see PROFESSOR #1). Given the time span of this subject's career, plus the rather specialized nature, citations to that extent may be sufficient in the aggregate with #7 & #8. I'll watch here for others' thoughts. JFHJr (㊟) 15:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- probable Weak Delete -- a tough choice. Seems exactly borderline for notability -- I think JFHjr's comments are exactly right in saying it's on the edge, with some real claims to notability, but perhaps not enough. In a case like this, I look at external factors that do not generally come into AfD except on the absolute border: is the page well-written, is it likely to improve, and does it help the overall project of WP to document human knowledge objectively. I think that the article fails on all three of these (#2 since it seems to be getting worse with each edit). I know that some editors don't like to consider anything but notability/verifiability in AfDs, in which case regard this !vote as a neutral. But I'm a pragmatist who feels that well-written, useful articles that fall just below WP:N can sometimes be kept while messes of articles that barely pass WP:N should sometimes be deleted (obviously clear passes or clear fails should be kept/deleted regardless of the state of the article). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 16:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per my comments above. I certainly understand the opposite conclusion on the same facts. But this is my estimation. At minimum, this nomination deserves a soft one. JFHJr (㊟) 03:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am left with the distinct impression that the subject of this article is doing what is expected of him, as a matter of course, in such posts. If anything, I would have expected to see evidence of more notable academic publications. Attending seminars is par for the course in such jobs to keep abreast of developments in their chosen field. The regional 'merit' award being touted as a significant achievement does not equate to a national or central government award, which would make him stand out in a crowd. The article also lacks chronological information about his career.--Zananiri (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.